On Subversion

A Ukrainian protester at Maiden fires a pistol. A Ukrainian protester at Maiden fires a pistol.

In modern times, discourse not filtered through the lens of secular Liberalism is a rare thing. It occasionally feels as if post-modern rhetoric is society’s de facto method of discourse; nearly everyone acts as if the personal is political, and they see an argument against their opinion as an attack on themselves as a person. Particularly, Enlightenment ideals are so entrenched within our societies that most people cannot conceive of an alternative ideological argument or viewpoint, revealing a massive intellectual vacuum in the space where the Right should be standing as a guard against the Left.

This ideological vacuum has allowed the progressive Left to proliferate and to continually push the Overton window further and further left along the political spectrum, with little to no push back from the so-called “Conservative” party. As the Left pushes onward, the Right crumbles and caves on nearly every major issue, with only occasional meaningless gestures to parade around for the base. The intellectual vapidity and cowardice that the Conservative establishment has displayed has left little reprieve for their core constituency, the White Christian population, from feeling the political, cultural, religious, and ethnic effects of widespread Liberalization.

When the political party who most aligns with your views has been repeatedly shown to be operating completely without backbone, how should you modify your strategy for achieving your goals? Appealing to your perceived institutional power won’t work, as the institution you are lobbying to acts as controlled opposition without regard for its base’s concerns. In this situation, I would argue that a potentially effective strategy is to adapt to the greater environment we find ourselves in, and attempt to utilize it as a weapon against itself. Like a seasoned jiu-jitsu practitioner, we can attempt to use the Other’s strengths to our advantage. What exactly do I mean by this, and what examples might illustrate the principle?

On Subversion

Subversion, while not having a completely accepted definition, generally means to “undermine the power and authority of the established institution”. When I speak of subversion here, I’m specifically referring to utilizing the rhetorical devices employed by the Progressive Left to successfully argue in favor of your own views and goals.

I first learned of subversion and subversive techniques from a speech by USSR defector Yuri Bezmenov to the anti-communist group “The John Birch Society.” Here he discussed the USSR’s societal subversion techniques and methods for undermining the morality and ideology of the United States. In this talk, he describes what the Russians termed “ideological subversion.” There is no “noir romanticism” involved here; we aren’t talking espionage and intelligence gathering like what the word can sometimes bring to mind. Instead, ideological subversion is a process that takes place out in the open, free for all to observe. It is the process in which you change society’s perception of reality to such an extent that despite an abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

Bezmenov goes on to say that:

It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow, and is divided into four basic stages, the first one being demoralization. It takes from fifteen to twenty years to demoralize a nation.  Why that many years?  Because this is the minimum number of years which requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy.

In other words, ideology is injected into the educational system and is allowed to mutate freely from that point on. What it eventually becomes is of little consequence; the desired effect is for the reigning ideology to become destabilized. His point here is key to a successful ideological subversion: channeling a generation of malleable young minds through an educational system that inculcates the subversive ideology is a necessary component for the long-term normalization of the subversive ideology.

The talk in which Bezmenov describes the USSR’s ideological subversion plan is targeted at subversion on a national scale, and designed to work against an entire country. While our aims aren’t as lofty as the USSR’s, I believe the process he describes holds value for our own attempts at subversion. Bezmenov describes a total of four stages of a successful ideological subversion.

1. Demoralization

Demoralization is the process of achieving a moral upheaval in order to induce ideological blindness, and a refusal to acknowledge things that do not fit neatly within the ideology that the individual has embraced. That is, once objectively true information is shown to the ‘demoralized’ individual, it does not matter; this person is unable to assess true information that does not align with their worldview, and so the information is discarded or totally ignored. Facts no longer hold a greater weight in the mind of these people.

Bezmenov says of the demoralized individual:

Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camps, he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom.  When a military boot crushes his balls — THEN he will understand. But not before that.  That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

2. Destabilization

Destabilization is the meat & potatoes of the subversive attack. It deals with modifying a nation’s essentials: Economy, Foreign Relations, Defense. With a successfully subverted generation of students who are now adults, some of whom are undoubtedly in positions of power within the government, the subversive ideology is designed to take root and influence the decision-making and policy guidelines in these crucial areas.

While this is certainly the most important step in the process, Bezmenov was astonished at the rapidity of the change in American values and the speed of success of the subversion here in the US:

This time…what matters is essentials: economy, foreign relations, defense systems.  And you can see it quite clearly that in some areas, in such sensitive areas as defense and economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic.

I could never believe it, fourteen years ago, when I landed in this part of the world, that the process will go that fast.

3. Crisis.

This is the end result of destabilization, the climax to destabilization’s crescendo. Bezmenov noted that crisis could potentially be reached in an exceedingly speedy length of time:

It may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis. You can see it in Central America, now. It may take far longer, but it might not.

4. Normalization

After crisis, with a potentially violent change of power and economic structure, you have a so-called a period of “normalization”. This period may last indefinitely, according to Mr. Bezmenov, and represents the acceptance of the new order as normalcy for the peoples living in the transformed nation.

Regarding the name of this particular stage, Bezmenov explains that:

Normalization is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda.  When the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in 1968, Comrade Breznev said:  “Now, the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalized.”

Of these steps, Bezmenov was obviously speaking of the official USSR subversion program, operating on a scale far larger than anything we can carry out or mimic. How do we internalize this lesson in subversion, how do we extract value from Bezmenov’s warning to the Non-Communist world in a manner that is localized so that regular individuals can participate? I believe that answer lies in an examination of the Progressive Left’s favored issues and our own. A potentially exploitable attack vector remains in the area in which we can find an overlap of interests. Ultimately, in practice this will appear as using their own rhetoric and argumentation techniques against them, so that we morph their arguments for their position X into an argument in favor of our position Y. As of yet, this has all been abstract, nothing more than a look back at the historical record of the Russian subversion strategy. This strategy isn’t even on a scale we can mimic! So how is this of value?  What would this particular type of subversion look like in the real world?

European Student Unions

The rise of European Student Unions on many American campuses across the nation is a perfect example of small-scale subversion. The Left, particularly the Progressive wing of the Left, is intensely focused on issues of sexual, racial, and cultural identity. They’ve juxtaposed the issue in a very strange manner, such that these core identity issues are considered both extremely important, and simultaneously, that they should be of no consequence at all. Race, sex, and culture are all seen as being core identity issues that must be confronted and examined; yet these same attributes must also be omitted from consideration when making various types of decisions, as evidenced by a plethora of anti-discrimination laws and regulations that legally require these criteria to be ignored completely as well as media/social media mobs that attempts social shaming techniques as punishment for perceived transgressions.

As this issue is with the Left, such it is with me. I, like many among those on the Dissident Right, are also very interested in issues of identity, although my interests are primarily restricted to questions of my own ancestry, cultural heritage, and racial/cultural community. It’s a topic that has always fascinated me, and I share that same passion for the issue that many Leftists do, albeit in a different manner. Despite this overlap in interests, the Left has persistently and vehemently fought against any form of European racial/cultural community, claiming that doing so is a ‘racist’ act. In recent years, those who attempted to organize groups for those of European ancestry have been the target of doxxing, false copyright claims in order to shut down content, and subjected to a media mob that organizes to get these people fired from their positions and their careers ruined. The Authoritarian Left acts often with outright hostility towards those who wish to do nothing more than what other ethnic and cultural groups have been allowed to do: organize for their own collective interest.

This is where the beauty of European/White Student Unions (WSU’s) comes into play. In accordance with the subversion tactics formulated above, subversion must take place within the education system. This “controversy” was an organic movement that sprang forth from within that very system as a reaction to the suppression of European student collective organization. It has not gone unnoticed here that Liberalism’s eternally unfalsifiable boogeyman “institutional racism”, thought to be the answer to any perceived failings of non-European peoples, was in reality suppressing those who were of European ancestry. Groups designed for representing the collective interests of people of a particular racial identity had existed for decades, but only for students of non-European ancestry.

When the story first broke that WSU’s were being formed, many schools where these groups were forming vehemently denied any connection and quickly moved to loudly and publicly denounce the groups. This is a perfect example of actual institutional racism; where one set of students, based on a protected class, is prevented from equal treatment/access. The beauty of this is that Universities are federally required to strictly enforce equality measures, and discrimination is not only highly illegal within academia, it is a near heretical offense. This visceral response to students who felt marginalized on campus inspired many other WSU’s across the nation to form, and made the Left answer a question to confront its own racialist preferences: “If other racial groups are allowed to form groups to advocate for their collective interests, by what justification do you deny those same rights to students of European ancestry?”

This question places the institutional Left squarely between a rock and a hard place. They can only do one of several things:

  1. Admit that the only reason European students are denied that right is due to their own ‘racist’ opinions
  2. Attempt to conjure up an argument based on special criteria that will seemingly only apply to White students
  3. Acquiesce

In some cases, we’ve seen #3 be chosen, and in others, #2 was the preferred method, as the invocation of Original Sin (White Privilege) being the primary method of resistance among the institutionally racist Left. If these students wished to push the issue, a court case would very likely result in a ruling in favor of the students. In a unique manner, the creators of the WSU’s were able to successfully subvert the Left’s own rhetoric and tactics against them in order to leverage them for their own purposes.

This is the end goal of utilizing ideological subversion for our own purposes; to subvert from within, to attack, and to amplify that attack when pushed back against. It is an application of Alinskyite rules for our own radicals, and can serve as an attack vector against Liberalism until the intellectual vacuum of the Right can once again be filled. Small-scale ideological subversion is a weapon to be used in our unique form of 4th generation guerrilla warfare, and I argue that until such a time comes that we have a competing ideology to Liberalism, it will be one of the strongest tools we have.